First, Steve's family asked us to respect their privacy. They never made his fight with cancer a public matter and it's terribly rude to speculate like this. D

First, Steve's family asked us to respect their privacy. They never made his fight with cancer a public matter and it's terribly rude to speculate like this. Discussing a possible injustice that may have cost him his life seems like a worthwhile reason to drag his name into the conversation. And though the individual ultimately has a right to privacy and choice over their own treatment, I worry that such politeness helps create the bubble in which misinformation can go without scrutiny. my honest impression is that for several forms of cancer the current state of "orthodox" treatment (typically chemotherapy and radiation) is a joke worth skipping in exchange for what quality of life you have left If you know of a better cancer treatment, then the scientific community eagerly awaits evidence of your discovery. If you think that current best practices do not act in the best interests of the patient, that too can be supported with evidence. There is no reason to conflate disruptive theories with abandoning rationality by pigeonholing scientific medicine into an orthodoxy. Skepticism and prejudice are easily confused. Skepticism is harder, but it's also correct.